Imagining Work without Exclusionary Barriers Barbara Reskin* I. REIMAGINING WORK AND THE EROSION OF WORK STRUCTURES In the wake of the Industrial Revolution the social arrangements through which people do productive work have changed. Sometimes changes in the technology or organization of work sufficiently alter work practices so that they themselves are revolutionary. Most recently, microelectronic technological innovations, the globalization of work, and the development of multinational capital markets have had revolutionary consequences by permitting capital to achieve and hence to pursue unlimited profits. In the last decades of the twentieth century, this pursuit has ushered in such startling changes in employment practices that reimagining work has become a minor industry. Social scientists and management scholars predict the externalization of work and the erosion of the employer-employee relationship,' and with them the elimination of jobs as we know them. 2 The celebrants of these changes envision workers with the same goal as their employers-attaining enormous wealth-and the same chance to realize their goal. They imagine workers in the new economy as free agents who voluntarily string together a series of contractual exchanges of work for compensation into a career. In the process, and through investment markets and e-commerce, workers will supposedly achieve economic security, independent of a particular employer. Observers also emphasize debureaucratization and the disappearance of hierarchy in work organizations.3 The prototypical work organization in this S. Frank Miyamoto Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington. An earlier version of this essay was presented at the conference on Women, Justice, and Authority, April 30, 2000 at Yale Law School. I gratefully acknowledge Dorothy J. Friendly's clerical and bibliographic assistance. 1. See generally Jeffrey Pfeffer & James N. Baron, Taking the Workers Back Out: Recent Trends in the Structuringof Employment, 10 RES. IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAV. 257 (1998). 2. Kevin T. Leicht, Work (If You Can Get It) and Occupations (If There Are Any)? What Social Scientists Can Learnfrom Predictionsof the End of Work and Radical Workplace Change, 25 WORK & OCCUPATIONs 36 (1998). 3. See. e.g., Paul DiMaggio, The Future of the Firm (paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Economic Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, March 4, 2000); Mark Granovetter, Economic Sociology at the Crossroads (paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on Economic Sociology, University of Pennsylvania Conference on Economic Sociology, March 4, 2000) Copyright © 2002 by the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism Yale Journal of Law and Feminism [Vol. 14: 313 fantasy resembles a Silicon Valley startup, with a flat organizational structure in which a relatively homogeneous group of workers perform similar jobs,4 work cooperatively as peers, and share the benefits of breakthroughs. In addition, social scientists predict that social capital, by which they mean social networks, will be the key for success in this brave new world of work. Thus, despite the valorization of rugged individualism in the new economy, success still comes to the well connected. Regardless of how pervasive the phenomena are in these visions, their existence and glorification as the embodiment of a brave, new workplace have alarming implications for the creation of work without exclusionary barriers. Consider the elimination of hierarchy. Organizations can indeed become flatter by combining job categories or compressing job ladders, and some have done so. 5 But flatter organizations also mean the compression or elimination of job ladders that have provided to white women and minority women and men a path from jobs as laborers, bank tellers, and reservation clerks to more rewarding positions. Although glass ceilings have prevented members of these groups from using job ladders to reach the top organizational strata, the elimination of those ladders will further lower the ceilings. The disappearance of formal hierarchical structures does not necessarily mean the disappearance of hierarchy. In some cases, hierarchy is outsourced when firms outsource low- prestige functions like security, cleaning, mailing, and human resources. This flattens hierarchies within establishments, by replacing them with cross- establishment hierarchy. Moreover, in flattened organizations hierarchy moves behind the scenes, thus increasing the importance of informal social networks for determining who gets what. The erosion of workplace bureaucracies threatens the careers of the traditionally excluded. Bureaucracy within work organizations is expressed primarily in written rules that govern employers' and employees' rights and responsibilities regarding their employment relationship. These include the specification of necessary job qualifications, the definition of job families and job ladders, promotion and transfer policies, evaluation criteria and procedures, entitlement to benefits, cause for termination, and the like. It is through these formal policies and their accompanying structures that workers obtain due- process protections. As I argue below, formal rules check caprice and favoritism. Although people who belong to the group that makes the rules 4. Peripheral functions have been outsourced. Pfeffer & Baron, supra note 1, at 269; Sharon R. Cohany et al., Counting the Workers: Results of a First Survey, in CONTINGENT WORK: AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS IN TRANSITION 41, 49, 58 (Kathleen Barker & Kathleen Christensen eds., 1998). 5. Outsourcing low-prestige functions like security, cleaning, mailing, and human resources helps to flatten hierarchies within organizations, although it does not reduce inequality in the workforce as a whole, it just concentrates nonstandard workers in different and less desirable work arrangements. See Pfeffer & Baron, supra note 1, at 269, 270, 274; Ame Kalleberg, Barbara Reskin & Ken Hudson, Bad Jobs in America, 65 AM. SOC. REV. 256, 264 (2000). 2002) Imagining Work without Exclusionary Barriers rarely need formal rules to advance in their careers, the traditionally• 6 excluded derive their rights and protections from organizational bureaucracies. The replacement of the standard employer-employee relationship, the model organization of work in the last half of the 20th century, with more "flexible" arrangements also threatens to exacerbate race- and sex-based exclusion. The standard employment arrangement, which came into its own in the middle of the twentieth century, is characterized by the exchange of a worker's labor for monetary compensation by an employer, with work performed on a fixed schedule, at the employer's place of business, under the employer's control, and with the mutual expectation of continued employment. 7 It is through this standard employment relationship that the government protects workers from dangerous working conditions, unfair treatment and discrimination, and the vicissitudes of unemployment. Through it the government provides family and medical leave and social security to some Americans. Thus, the standard employment relation can be seen as a work structure that provides certain protections to workers. In sum, trends that have been attributed to the new economy involve the erosion of employment structures-practices and policies that govern the allocation of employment and job rewards. Seniority-based promotion systems, academic tenure, and professional partnership all exemplify work structures that can protect the marginalized--or at least those members of marginalized groups who obtain jobs under their protection. 8 Thus, employment structures are critical for ensuring equal access for marginalized 9 groups. II. WHY WORK STRUCTURES ARE CRITICAL FOR MARGINALIZED GROUPS Work structures are essential for protecting members of marginalized groups for several reasons. In the first place, work structures make visible and public the "rules" (e.g., job posting, job descriptions) one needs to survive and succeed at work. Their visibility also signals an employer's public values with respect to uniform treatment, fairness, and the like. For example, the existence 6. Externalization of work-independent contracting, outsourcing, and the like-has narrowed the reach of bureaucratic work structures. Kalleberg et a]., supra note 5, at 274. 7. Kalleberg et al., supra note 5, at 257-58. 8. Just as tenure-track jobs are increasingly outside the reach of some academics who must settle for contingent work that provides no job security, low pay, and few if any benefits, law firm associates increasingly find themselves as permanent employees rather than equity partners. Elizabeth H. Gorman, Up-Or-Out Contracts in Law Firms: Promotion or Dismissal in the Context of Knowledge-Intensive Services (1997) (unpublished manuscript, on file with author). 9. It is no coincidence that these protective structures are at risk when people of color and white women can finally draw on their protections. To paraphrase Carter and Carter, once women and minorities got a ticket to ride, the gravy train stopped running. Michael J. Carter & Susan Boslego Carter, Women's Recent Progress in the Professions or, Women Get A Ticket to Ride After The Gravy Train Has Left The Station, 7 FEMINIST STUD. 477, 500-01 (1981). Yale Journal of Law and Feminism [Vol. 14: 313 of job ladders signals to workers that their employer rewards satisfactory performance with a promotion, while the absence of promotion structures makes